A LOOK THROUGH THE EYES OF
PRE-SERVICE EDUCATORS AND IN-SERVICE EDUCATORS
ON TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
American Educational Research Association
Annual Meeting
Vancouver, B.C.
April 15, 2012
Marisa del Campo
M a r y E . Ya k i m o w s k i
University of Connecticut, Neag School of Education
OVERVIEW
Purpose
Review of Literature
Methodology
Results
Implications of Results
Future Avenues
PURPOSE
To examine the presence of positive affective
characteristics for working with ELL students
across and within three groups of educators
More specifically, to examine the presence of educators’ perceived
knowledge, self efficacy and attitudes about inclusion as related to
ELLs across pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, pre-service
administrators; and to investigate how their development may be
related to several factors within each group (i.e., non-English
proficiency, field placement, school setting, # ELL’s taught)
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Changing Demographics
•
Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008; NCELA, 2007;
NCES, 2010
Preparation of Mainstream Teachers
•
Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005; Reeves,
2006; Yakimowski et al., 2011
Achievement Gap and NCLB
•
Fry, 2008; USDOE, 2002; NAEP, 2009
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986)
Beliefs (attitudes) are critical to the decisions people make
Ex) Teacher beliefs about language development (Byrnes, Kiger,
and Manning, 1997; Clair, 1995; Karathanos, 2009; Kelly, 1988) and
degree to which they implement research-based strategies to
support L1 in classroom (August & Shanahan, 2006; Goldenberg,
2008)
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986)
Beliefs (attitudes) are critical to the decisions people make
•
Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1986)
Belief in one’s own ability to perform particular activities
successfully or effectively
•
Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE)
•
•
•
Job satisfaction and burnout (Ware & Kitsantas, 2007)
Achievement and motivation (Caprara, Barbarelli, Steca, &
Malone, 2006)
Teaching ELL students (Karabenick, Clemens, and Noda ;
Paneque & Barbetta )
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
There is a need to develop an
understanding of factors that influence the
development of positive affective
characteristics in educators who work with
ELLs.
This study examines the presence of perceived
knowledge, attitudes, and self efficacy across 3 groups of
educators, and investigates how their presence may be
related to multiple factors within each group.
METHODOLOGY: SUBJECTS
Pre-service teachers
•
Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s (IB/M) program at the University
of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education
In-service teachers
•
Teachers partnering with IB/M students for clinical experiences
Pre-service administrators
•
University of Connecticut Administrator Preparation Program
(UCAPP), Neag School of Education
Respondents –292
•
•
•
122 Pre-service teachers
143 In-service teachers
27 Pre-service administrators
METHODS: INSTRUMENTATION
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy toward ELLs
(KASELL)
•
•
•
•
19 items rated on a 5 point Likert scale
Developed by Durgonoglo & Hughes (2010), modeled on
previous survey of general teacher efficacy (DarlingHammond, Chung, and Frelow, 2002).
Reliability/Validity
Durgonoglo & Hughes’ (2010) revealed four factors:
 Perceived preparation (α=0.81)
 Self-efficacy (α=0.83)
 Attitudes toward ELLs in the classroom (α=0.79)
 Attitudes toward ELL parents (α=0.68)
METHODS: RESEARCH QS
Are there differences among
the groups (pre-service teachers,
in-service teachers, and pre-service
administrators) with
respect to
their KASELL (global or factor)
scores?
METHODS: RESEARCH QS
Within each group…
Are there differences between
those proficient in a non-English
language and those not proficient with
respect to the KASELL global
and factor scores?
METHODS: RESEARCH QS
Within pre-service teachers…
Are there differences among Juniors,
Seniors, and/or 5th year students with
respect to the KASELL global and factor
scores?
METHODS: RESEARCH QS
Within in-service teachers…
Do teachers working in distinct settings (urban,
suburban, or rural) and/or teaching varying
numbers of ELL students (0, 1-6, 7 or more) show
differences with respect to their KASELL global
and factor scores?
METHODS: RESEARCH QS
Among pre-service administrators…
Are there differences between administrator
candidates in various field placements
(elementary, secondary) show differences with
respect to their KASELL global and factor
scores?
METHODS: ANALYSES
Overall Descriptive Statistics
Respondent background
Factor Scores in the affective domain
Perceived preparation
 Self-efficacy
 Attitudes toward ELLs in the classroom
 Attitudes toward ELL parents

METHODS: ANALYSES
ANOVA (All Groups)

We wish to determine if the 3 groups differ with respect to their
global KASELL scores, and to find whether educators with
proficiency in a language other than English score significantly
higher than those without
IV’s:
1. 3 groups – pre-service and in-service teachers, and pre-service
administrators
2. Participants’ self-rating of proficiency in a language other than
English
DV:
Global KASELL score as an aggregate of all 4
factor means
METHODS: ANALYSES
MANOVA (All Groups)

Do the 3 groups of educators’ scores significantly differ in the affective
area of: knowledge? self efficacy? attitudes towards classroom
inclusion? attitudes towards ELL parents?

Do scores of those with other language proficiencies differ from those
without in any of these four areas?
IVs:
1. 3 groups – pre-service and in-service teachers, and pre-service
administrators
2. Participants’ self-rating of proficiency in a language other than
English
DVs: (4)
KASELL score in each of the four factors
METHODS: ANALYSES
Pre-service teachers
IV’s:
1) proficiency in a non- English language
2) year in pre-service program (Jr, Sr, 5th year)
Two-Way ANOVA
D.V.: Global KASELL Score
Two-Way MANOVA
D.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors
1) Knowledge (perceived)
2) Self-efficacy
3) Attitude toward inclusion of ELLs in classroom
4) Attitude toward parents of ELL students
METHODS: ANALYSES
In-service teachers
IV’s:
1) proficiency in a non- English language
2) Number of ELL’s taught in the classroom (0, 1-6, 7 or more)
3) School setting (urban, suburban, rural)
Three-Way ANOVA
D.V.: Global KASELL Score
Three-Way MANOVA
D.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors
METHODS: ANALYSES
Pre-service administrators
IV’s:
1) proficiency in a non- English language
2) Field placement (elementary, secondary)
Two-Way ANOVA
D.V.: Global KASELL Score
Two-Way MANOVA
D.V.’s: KASELL score in each of the four factors
RESULTS
Overall
PreService
InService
Affective Factors
M
(SD)
M
(SD)
M
(SD)
3.58
(.89)
3.57
(.74)
3.84
(1.01)
3.65
(.90)
3.61
(.69)
3.36
(.63)
3.38
(.60)
3.82
(.91)
3.69
(.95)
3.45
(.49)
3.67
(.96)
3.65
(.77)
3.85
(1.05)
3.65
(.89)
3.67
(.74)
Knowledge
Self-efficacy
Attitude Toward ELLs -Classroom
Attitude Toward Parents
Total
RESULTS: Background Characteristics
In-Service
N
%
115
80.4
117
12
81.8
8.4
68
47.5
Rural
24
17.0
Suburban
54
38.3
Urban
63
44.7
Gender: Female
Race/Ethnicity
White
Hispanic/Latino
Can Speak another Language
School Setting
RESULTS: Background Characteristics
In-Service
Grade Level Taught
K-6
7-12
Number of ELL Students in Class
0
1-3
4-6
7 or more
N
68
73
%
48.2
51.8
28
41
32
40
19.9
29.1
22.7
28.4
Over
all
PreService
InService
I am prepared to tailor instructional and
other services to the needs to ELL students.
3.36
3.29
3.61
I possess a clear understanding of the
language demands of the content area that I
will teach.
3.81
3.68
4.05
I am knowledgeable of teaching strategies
and instructional practices for ELL students
that are developmentally appropriate.
3.25
3.00
3.48
I am knowledgeable of alternate ways of
giving feedback.
3.71
3.71
3.84
I am knowledgeable of teaching practices
that are attuned to students’ language
proficiencies and cognitive levels.
3.43
3.22
3.72
I am knowledgeable of teaching practices
that are culturally supportive and relevant.
3.62
3.29
3.90
Factor 1--Knowledge
ANOVA RESULTS f (All groups)
Significant Effect for Group (F= 10.013; p<.01)
Significant Effect for Non-English Language Proficiency (F= 6.157; p<.05)
Effect
SS
Df
MS
F
Group
Non-English
Proficiency
Gender*
7.987
2
3.993
10.013
2.455
.404
1
1
2.455
.404
6.157
1.013
Race/Ethnici
ty*
1.202
1
1.202
3.015
Global KASELL scores of pre-service administrators and in-service teachers were
significantly higher than those of pre-service teachers
Global scores of those proficient in another language were significantly higher than
those not proficient
MANOVA RESULTS f (All groups)
Dependent
Source Variable
NEProf
Group
F1 – knowledge
SS
DF
MS
F
4.876
1
4.876
6.876
F2 – self-efficacy
3.094
1
3.094
6.508
F3
.004
1
.004
.005
F4
.097
1
.097
.127
F1 – knowledge
18.537
2
9.269
13.071
F2 – self-efficacy
6.501
2
3.250
6.838
F3
1.862
2
.931
1.013
F4
1.409
2
.705
.923
For “non-English proficiency”, and for “Group”,
significant effects are found in factors 1 & 2 only,
perceived knowledge and self-efficacy
p< .01
p<.05
p< .01
p<.01
MANOVA RESULTS f (All groups)
Source
Gender
Dependent
Variable
Knowledge
SS
.368
DF
1
MS
.368
F
.520
Self efficacy
.036
1
.036
.076
6.243
1
6.243
6.792
.722
1
.722
.946
Attitudes toward
ELLs - classroom
Attitudes- ELL
parents
Gender effects for Factor 3: Attitudes towards ELLs
in the regular classroom (F= 6.792; p=.01)
RESULTS: Additional Findings
 Among pre-service teachers
 Year in the program yielded no significant effect in global scores or factor
scores
 Among in-service teachers
 Factor 3, “attitudes toward inclusion of ELLs in the classroom” significant
differences found by the number of ELLs the in the classroom



Teachers reporting 1 – 6 ELLs: most favorable attitudes towards inclusion.
Teachers with no ELLs: lowest average score on factor 3.
Factor 2, “self-efficacy” higher in those reporting proficiency in another
language
 Among pre-service administrators
 Factor 3  Pre-service administrators at the elementary level reported more
positive attitudes towards inclusion than those in other placements
IMPLICATIONS of RESULTS
 Pre-service teachers lower in KASELL than other groups, specifically in “perceived
knowledge” and “self-efficacy”.


Possible variation due to greater levels of experience, or past success working with ELLs
Teacher education programs can explore ways to develop candidates’ self-efficacy with ELLs
while professional identities are early in the process of formation.
 Proficiency in language other than English related to knowledge and self-efficacy to work
with ELLs.


•
Given evidence indicating ELLs benefit when L1 is supported (e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006)
teacher education might seek to recruit more bilingual teachers
Curricula might explicitly target and develop this competency (native-language support) in
candidates who are not bilingual, providing multiple opportunities for practice through
coursework and clinic experiences
Number of ELLs taught appeared related to attitudes toward inclusion; those without ELLs
in the class had the least positive attitudes

Teacher education programs can work to ensure that candidates gain experiences in culturally
and linguistically diverse settings, where ELL students are receiving quality instruction
 Female respondents more positive about inclusion of ELLs in general education classroom



Possibility of response bias
Gender may be a factor related to how individuals respond affectively to the challenge of
teaching ELLs
Benefits of tailoring higher education courses and learning to respond to individual
differences
FUTURE AVENUES
Do affective perceptions about teaching ELLs change over
students’ time in the teacher education program?

Obtain measures from the same cohort of pre-service teachers at
program entry and exit points
What aspects of preparation help to facilitate increases in
these affective perceptions?

Examine a sample of pre-service teachers who exhibit the greatest
growth in affective domain
How do affective perceptions about teaching ELL students
relate to ELL student outcomes?

Use measures of student outcomes to determine if teachers scoring
highly in affective perceptions demonstrate positive impacts on student
learning
FUTURE AVENUES
Do affective perceptions about teaching ELLs change over
students’ time in the teacher education program?

Obtain measures from the same cohort of pre-service teachers at
program entry and exit points
What aspects of preparation help to facilitate increases in
these affective perceptions?

Examine a sample of pre-service teachers who exhibit the greatest
growth in affective domain
How do affective perceptions about teaching ELL students
relate to ELL student outcomes?

Use measures of student outcomes to determine if teachers scoring
highly in affective perceptions demonstrate positive impacts on student
learning
A LOOK THROUGH THE EYES OF
PRE-SERVICE EDUCATORS AND IN-SERVICE TEACHERS
ON TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
American Educational Research Association
Annual Meeting
Vancouver, B.C.
April 15, 2012
Marisa del Campo
M a r y E . Ya k i m o w s k i
University of Connecticut, Neag School of Education